When is a Riddle Not a Riddle?

[falloutimperial]

I am personally a fan of riddles, but there are times when after being stumped by one and having the answer told, I am not satisfied with the answer.
There are generally two problems. The first is a riddle so obtuse no one could solve it without knowing the answer. The other is when the riddle is incorrect even when the solution is presented. Case in point:

"What walks with four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three legs at night?"

The generally accepted answer is "a man." See, because canes are legs. And days are lives. Am I wrong, or does this transcend logic?

[Feytalist]

When it is ajar.

Wait, what?

...I think I messed that one up.

[Traab]

The legs riddle is one of those metaphorical riddles instead of a play on words. Similar to 30 white horses on a red hill. First they champ, then they stamp, then they stand still. Clearly your teeth arent horses, and your gums are most likely not hills. There are a couple types of riddles, some are plays on words, like puns you have to figure out, like whats black and white and red all over. Others are more descriptive terms that requires a sideways twist of logic to really get.

[Cespenar]

Am I wrong, or does this transcend logic?

Riddles never were about logic anyway. They use allegory, and honestly are more art than science. With all the subjectivity that brings.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Case in point:

"What walks with four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three legs at night?"

The generally accepted answer is "a man." See, because canes are legs. And days are lives. Am I wrong, or does this transcend logic?
This particular riddle is 2500+ years old, and ALL traditional riddles are like that. (Well, I don't actually know all of them :smalltongue:, but that's how they work as a rule.)

If you can't get their logic, I honestly can't imagine what sort of riddles you're a fan of. It must be something young lads and lasses are into.
*grabs a cane and walks away slowly*

[nedz]

This is an old classic. It's in Old English
Ic eom wunderlicu wiht,
wifum on hyhte,
neahbuendum nyt.
Nængum sceþþe
burgsittendra
nymþe bonan anum.
Staþol min is steapheah;
stonde ic on bedde,
neoþan ruh nathwær.
Neþeð hwilum
ful cyrtenu
ceorles dohtor,
modwlonc meowle,
þæt heo on mec gripeð,
ræseð mec on reodne,
reafað min heafod,
fegeð mec on fæsten.
Feleþ sona
mines gemotes
seo þe mec nearwað,
wif wundenlocc--
wæt bið þæt eage.

The strange letters are Thorn and Wynn; which are the hard and soft th.

Translation
I am a wonderful help to women,
The hope of something to come. I harm
No citizen except my slayer.
Rooted I stand on a high bed.
I am shaggy below. Sometimes the beautiful
Peasant's daughter, an eager-armed,
Proud woman grabs my body,
Rushes my red skin, holds me hard,
Claims my head. The curly-haired
Woman who catches me fast will feel
Our meeting. Her eye will be wet.

Source:
Riddle 23 from the Exeter Book

[Rawhide]

What has it got in its pocketses?

I'll allow three guesses.

[Thajocoth]

What has it got in its pocketses?

I'll allow three guesses.

Not fair! It isn’t fair to ask us what it’s got in its pocketses!

[Haruki-kun]

The only times I would consider a riddle "not a riddle" is when the answer is either:

a) A trivia fact that you would have had to know.
b) A piece of information that was left out that could NOT have been deduced by lateral thinking.
c) An existing event in the life of the person telling the riddle that no one else would have known.

[SiuiS]

I am personally a fan of riddles, but there are times when after being stumped by one and having the answer told, I am not satisfied with the answer.
There are generally two problems. The first is a riddle so obtuse no one could solve it without knowing the answer. The other is when the riddle is incorrect even when the solution is presented. Case in point:

"What walks with four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three legs at night?"

The generally accepted answer is "a man." See, because canes are legs. And days are lives. Am I wrong, or does this transcend logic?

That's sort of the point. All riddles require lateral thinking.


The legs riddle is one of those metaphorical riddles instead of a play on words. Similar to 30 white horses on a red hill. First they champ, then they stamp, then they stand still. Clearly your teeth arent horses, and your gums are most likely not hills. There are a couple types of riddles, some are plays on words, like puns you have to figure out, like whats black and white and red all over. Others are more descriptive terms that requires a sideways twist of logic to really get.

I always heard it as teeth on a chestnut; the red hill was the nut.

[Traab]

That's sort of the point. All riddles require lateral thinking.



I always heard it as teeth on a chestnut; the red hill was the nut.

I have a copy of the hobbit on audio, in that version its red hill. Actually, I have listened to two audio versions, im pretty sure both say hill.

[nedz]

The actual text in my copy of The Hobbit has Thirty white horses on a red hill. But if it's a traditional riddle, or you're reading a translation, then other versions may exist.

[falloutimperial]

Can it fairly be said that a metaphor as confused as the Sphinx's could be deduced by any form of lateral thinking? I know that just because a riddle has multiple valid responses doesn't make it a faulty riddle, but with creativity, almost anything could be the solution.

"What walks with four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three legs at night?"

Obviously, the answer is the colour yellow. In the morning, the sky is yellow and expands in all four cardinal directions. At noon, the yellow sun is straight above our heads, and goes up and down, two directions. At night, there are two distinct yellow groups, the moon and the stars. But as we know, the moon is just reflecting the sun's rays, therefore three is the sum. If yellow=sky inhabitants and direction=legs is any less obtuse than days=lives and legs, arms, and wood= legs, then I must be foolish enough to miss a very great facet.

[Thajocoth]

Can it fairly be said that a metaphor as confused as the Sphinx's could be deduced by any form of lateral thinking? I know that just because a riddle has multiple valid responses doesn't make it a faulty riddle, but with creativity, almost anything could be the solution.

"What walks with four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three legs at night?"

Obviously, the answer is the colour yellow. In the morning, the sky is yellow and expands in all four cardinal directions. At noon, the yellow sun is straight above our heads, and goes up and down, two directions. At night, there are two distinct yellow groups, the moon and the stars. But as we know, the moon is just reflecting the sun's rays, therefore three is the sum. If yellow=sky inhabitants and direction=legs is any less obtuse than days=lives and legs, arms, and wood= legs, then I must be foolish enough to miss a very great facet.

If whether or not you got to eat or starve depended on whether or not your prey could answer a riddle, you wouldn't make a fair riddle either.

[Saskia]

Can it fairly be said that a metaphor as confused as the Sphinx's could be deduced by any form of lateral thinking?

Absolutely it can. The first time I heard the Sphinx's riddle I immediately though of a human; I wouldn't say I'm some great genius at lateral thinking, and I don't think that I am. Riddles are by their nature about our perceptions and preconceptions that we hold as individuals, as well as our cultural biases. A good riddle is poetry with two (or more) poets; the first identifies a perception taken for granted (animals can only have flesh and bone legs), the second identifies the preconception and more importantly considers a scenario where that preconception doesn't apply (What if an arm and a cane counted as legs?).

Keep in mind that Oedipus doesn't just say "A man" and walk through; the sphinx asks the riddle, Oedipus answers and defends his response logically, and the sphinx lets him pass. It doesn't imply that there's only one acceptable answer, so it's perfectly reasonable to suspect that your answer would suffice, or any other defensible solution, though yours is far more abstruse simply using a cane as metaphor for leg; it serves the same mechanical purpose after all.


I know that just because a riddle has multiple valid responses doesn't make it a faulty riddle, but with creativity, almost anything could be the solution.

You seem to be missing a big part of the appeal of riddles. Having multiple valid responses isn't just an acceptable inclusion in a riddle, it's a vital part of a good one; otherwise it's just a puzzle. It's similar in nature to "what's black and white and re[a]d all over?" A newspaper could be clever (at least, when the riddle was new), but a zebra with smallpox is a funnier answer. Riddles are and have always been competitions of wit; I try to make up a question that's difficult to answer, you try to answer it with a solution that I didn't think of. Look at old Germanic and Scandinavian heroes. One of the primary qualities that a Germanic hero exhibits almost universally is a sharp wit and never being caught at a loss for words and always always come out on top because he's more clever than the other guy. A riddle is very much like a verbal Rorschach test in that if you're doing it right, there is never one definitive "right" answer; It's supposed to be an exercise in lateral thinking and problem solving.

Also, keep in mind that the Sphinx kills herself after Oedipus offers a good solution; it implies that the Sphinx was not only equaled but bested, meaning that Oedipus was more clever than the Sphinx. That would imply to me that he thought of a response the Sphinx didn't; killing yourself because somebody is your equal is absurd, but there are myriad exhibitions in human history of suicide for being inferior, but rarely (if ever) for having an equal.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Absolutely it can. The first time I heard the Sphinx's riddle I immediately though of a human; I wouldn't say I'm some great genius at lateral thinking, and I don't think that I am. Riddles are by their nature about our perceptions and preconceptions that we hold as individuals, as well as our cultural biases. A good riddle is poetry with two (or more) poets; the first identifies a perception taken for granted (animals can only have flesh and bone legs), the second identifies the preconception and more importantly considers a scenario where that preconception doesn't apply (What if an arm and a cane counted as legs?).

Keep in mind that Oedipus doesn't just say "A man" and walk through; the sphinx asks the riddle, Oedipus answers and defends his response logically, and the sphinx lets him pass. It doesn't imply that there's only one acceptable answer, so it's perfectly reasonable to suspect that your answer would suffice, or any other defensible solution, though yours is far more abstruse simply using a cane as metaphor for leg; it serves the same mechanical purpose after all.



You seem to be missing a big part of the appeal of riddles. Having multiple valid responses isn't just an acceptable inclusion in a riddle, it's a vital part of a good one; otherwise it's just a puzzle. It's similar in nature to "what's black and white and re[a]d all over?" A newspaper could be clever (at least, when the riddle was new), but a zebra with smallpox is a funnier answer. Riddles are and have always been competitions of wit; I try to make up a question that's difficult to answer, you try to answer it with a solution that I didn't think of. Look at old Germanic and Scandinavian heroes. One of the primary qualities that a Germanic hero exhibits almost universally is a sharp wit and never being caught at a loss for words and always always come out on top because he's more clever than the other guy. A riddle is very much like a verbal Rorschach test in that if you're doing it right, there is never one definitive "right" answer; It's supposed to be an exercise in lateral thinking and problem solving.

Also, keep in mind that the Sphinx kills herself after Oedipus offers a good solution; it implies that the Sphinx was not only equaled but bested, meaning that Oedipus was more clever than the Sphinx. That would imply to me that he thought of a response the Sphinx didn't; killing yourself because somebody is your equal is absurd, but there are myriad exhibitions in human history of suicide for being inferior, but rarely (if ever) for having an equal.


So, I had never ever considered riddles like this before.

That was one AWESOME post.

[Traab]

Oh god, the black and white and red all over one has so many answers, a nun that fell down the stairs, a penguin that lost a fight, Im pretty sure I have a dusty bad joke book somewhere that has a full lit of them and its variants.

[Flickerdart]

Is a crocodile longer than green, or greener than long?

Longer - it's long on the outside and the inside, but only green on the outside.

Greener - it's green lengthwise, but also widthwise.

[Saskia]

So, I had never ever considered riddles like this before.

That was one AWESOME post.

Thanks :smallredface: Glad I could offer a fresh perspective :smallbiggrin:

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is an old classic. It's in Old English
Ic eom wunderlicu wiht,
wifum on hyhte,
neahbuendum nyt.
Nængum sceþþe
burgsittendra
nymþe bonan anum.
Staþol min is steapheah;
stonde ic on bedde,
neoþan ruh nathwær.
Neþeð hwilum
ful cyrtenu
ceorles dohtor,
modwlonc meowle,
þæt heo on mec gripeð,
ræseð mec on reodne,
reafað min heafod,
fegeð mec on fæsten.
Feleþ sona
mines gemotes
seo þe mec nearwað,
wif wundenlocc--
wæt bið þæt eage.

The strange letters are Thorn and Wynn; which are the hard and soft th.

Translation
I am a wonderful help to women,
The hope of something to come. I harm
No citizen except my slayer.
Rooted I stand on a high bed.
I am shaggy below. Sometimes the beautiful
Peasant's daughter, an eager-armed,
Proud woman grabs my body,
Rushes my red skin, holds me hard,
Claims my head. The curly-haired
Woman who catches me fast will feel
Our meeting. Her eye will be wet.

Source:
Riddle 23 from the Exeter Book

Just curious, what's the traditional answer associated with this riddle?

[HeadlessMermaid]

Onion, I'd assume.

[Heliomance]

Onion, I'd assume.

That makes sense. I couldn't think of anything other than the male genitalia - which I'm sure is entirely deliberate.

[Mx.Silver]

In answer to the thread title:
When it's Lord Voldemort.

[falloutimperial]

You seem to be missing a big part of the appeal of riddles. Having multiple valid responses isn't just an acceptable inclusion in a riddle, it's a vital part of a good one; otherwise it's just a puzzle. It's similar in nature to "what's black and white and re[a]d all over?" A newspaper could be clever (at least, when the riddle was new), but a zebra with smallpox is a funnier answer. Riddles are and have always been competitions of wit; I try to make up a question that's difficult to answer, you try to answer it with a solution that I didn't think of. Look at old Germanic and Scandinavian heroes. One of the primary qualities that a Germanic hero exhibits almost universally is a sharp wit and never being caught at a loss for words and always always come out on top because he's more clever than the other guy. A riddle is very much like a verbal Rorschach test in that if you're doing it right, there is never one definitive "right" answer; It's supposed to be an exercise in lateral thinking and problem solving.

Also, keep in mind that the Sphinx kills herself after Oedipus offers a good solution; it implies that the Sphinx was not only equaled but bested, meaning that Oedipus was more clever than the Sphinx. That would imply to me that he thought of a response the Sphinx didn't; killing yourself because somebody is your equal is absurd, but there are myriad exhibitions in human history of suicide for being inferior, but rarely (if ever) for having an equal.

I must agree with Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll. Even if I do not agree, you have just made a masterpiece of logic and frankly a piece of art.

Would you mind if I quoted part of this in my signature?

[HeadlessMermaid]

That makes sense. I couldn't think of anything other than the male genitalia - which I'm sure is entirely deliberate.
Well, obviously. :smalltongue:

Traditional riddles weren't devised by philosophers and scholars, they were made by - and for - simple folk. Bawdy jokes aside, the answer of a typical riddle was something you'd expect to see in a peasant's environment. The basic categories were:

1) Human body parts: mouth, eyes, nose, hand, foot.
2) Animals and plants: wolf, sheep, cow, radish (obviously :smalltongue:), tree, rose.
3) Common objects: chair, table, rake, hammer, plowshare, spindle.
4) Abstract concepts, but very fundamental ones - like time, life, death or love. Not "freedom" or "the color yellow" or anything so fancy.

The main reason that we, today, sometimes find folk riddles hard is that we live in a totally different environment. We learn abstract and analytical thinking, we receive facts and data from a thousand sources, and we know all sorts of things - but we don't regularly see a spindle at work, so we can't immediately picture it as something that "turns and turns, and grows fatter and fatter".

So while I generally agree with Saskia's post about lateral thinking and wit in riddles, I'd say that multiple answers are not necessary, and not the intention: if it makes you cry, it's NOT death, or disaster, or loss, or unfulfilled love, or anything of the sort. It's an onion. :smalltongue:

[nedz]

Onion, I'd assume.


That makes sense. I couldn't think of anything other than the male genitalia - which I'm sure is entirely deliberate.

Yes — it's a double entendre

[noparlpf]

In answer to the thread title:
When it's Lord Voldemort.

Darn, somebody got there before I could. :<

[SaintRidley]

That makes sense. I couldn't think of anything other than the male genitalia - which I'm sure is entirely deliberate.
Absolutely deliberate. There are a number of Old English riddles like that.

I think riddle 55 is still unsolved, but it's also a good bit damaged.

One we had fun with in class the other day was this one:

Wær sæt æt wine mid his wifum · twam
7 his twegen suno 7 his twa dohtor
swase gesweostor 7 hyre suno twegen
freolico frumbearn fæder wæs þær Inne
þara æþelinga æghwæðres mid
eam 7 nefa ealra wæron fife
eorla 7 idesa Insittendra

Translation:
A man sat at wine with his two wives
and his two sons and his two daughters,
beloved sisters, and their two sons,
goodly firstborn. The father was there
of each of those noble ones with
an uncle and nephew, of all there were five
men and women sitting together.

Answer:
Are you sure you don't want to figure it out yourself?Really sure?Okay...Lot, his daughters, and the sons they had together.

[nedz]

It's easy to find them online, e.g. here (http://www.technozen.com/exeter/)

[Rawhide]

In answer to the thread title:
When it's Lord Voldemort.

Ok, that's it folks, this thread is done. We have a winner.

[Kneenibble]

The strange letters are Thorn and Wynn; which are the hard and soft th.

Psst the letters are Thorn and Eth, which can both be voiced or unvoiced. Wynn is ƿ.

I love the Exeter riddles.

[nedz]

Oops - I really should have paid more attention :smallredface:

[SiuiS]

I have a copy of the hobbit on audio, in that version its red hill. Actually, I have listened to two audio versions, im pretty sure both say hill.


The actual text in my copy of The Hobbit has Thirty white horses on a red hill. But if it's a traditional riddle, or you're reading a translation, then other versions may exist.

No no, you misunderstand. I'm saying I don't think the red hill is your guns, I'm saying the red hill has always been a chest nut in the version I read. Whether or not the riddle mentions the hill was never in contention.


Can it fairly be said that a metaphor as confused as the Sphinx's could be deduced by any form of lateral thinking?

Yes, I can. I actually came up with that solution when first told the riddle, but discounted it because the guy who told me the riddle was a jerk and I didn't think he would accept it as a solution (thus implying he wouldn't tell a riddle with an answer he thought was stupid, so it couldnt have been the answer).

[Saskia]

I must agree with Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll. Even if I do not agree, you have just made a masterpiece of logic and frankly a piece of art.

Would you mind if I quoted part of this in my signature?

Thanks, have at it :smallredface:


Traditional riddles weren't devised by philosophers and scholars, they were made by - and for - simple folk.

Yeah, but having complex underlying psychology doesn't mean that the riddler has to be aware of the complexity of the interaction. A drive to look superior to somebody else is really very sophisticated, after all.


The main reason that we, today, sometimes find folk riddles hard is that we live in a totally different environment. We learn abstract and analytical thinking, we receive facts and data from a thousand sources, and we know all sorts of things - but we don't regularly see a spindle at work, so we can't immediately picture it as something that "turns and turns, and grows fatter and fatter".

If it were simply an alternate method of describing things then we wouldn't be impressed by clever ones, and we wouldn't have stories where a great hero proved his competence by his ability to discern riddles easily; it would be a trait of an average person. Sure, they were generally made and traded by the common folk, but just because they were commoners doesn't mean they were simpletons. Cleverness transcends social class, and that's a big part of why it was a trait traditional heroes possessed; it represents something you can't just acquire the way you can get lucky and get rich, and it's an innate trait that can make a commoner greater than a king. I think that's not something to be discounted, particularly in older societies with less social mobility, and I think that supports my point. If a commoner can be killed by a knight just 'cause, you can bet that commoner is going to cling to whatever trait he possesses that makes him better than the knight.

[HeadlessMermaid]

If it were simply an alternate method of describing things then we wouldn't be impressed by clever ones, and [....lots of stuff....]
Umm, that's not what I said. :smalltongue: I didn't claim that riddles are simple (or the people who made them were simpletons, or anything of the sort). Of course there's a great deal of wit involved. All I said was that the typical answers to riddles were simple - and not as open-ended as you made them sound.

For example, let's go back to the riddle of the Sphinx. If it isn't "man", then what is it? I know of no source suggesting an alternate answer, neither from the antiquity nor from the more recent folk tradition. Do you? Can you give examples of other riddles with multiple answers?

P.S. I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject. That's how I understand it, based on the traditional riddles I know - but perhaps multiple answers ARE in fact a thing, and I've missed it. Please enlighten me, I'd love to learn! :smallsmile:

EDIT - I suppose I should clarify that "what's black and white and red all over" is NOT a traditional riddle. No clever peasant of the antiquity or the Middle Ages would have made that one up. "Why is a raven like a writing desk" is NOT a traditional riddle, it's Lewis Carroll - and it only has multiple answers because it was never meant to have an answer in the first place.

[grimbold]

So, I had never ever considered riddles like this before.

That was one AWESOME post.

i thought the same

my understanding of riddles is forever changed

[Saskia]

Umm, that's not what I said. :smalltongue: I didn't claim that riddles are simple (or the people who made them were simpletons, or anything of the sort). Of course there's a great deal of wit involved. All I said was that the typical answers to riddles were simple - and not as open-ended as you made them sound.
Oh, I misunderstood you. Sorry :smallbiggrin:


For example, let's go back to the riddle of the Sphinx. If it isn't "man", then what is it? I know of no source suggesting an alternate answer, neither from the antiquity nor from the more recent folk tradition. Do you? Can you give examples of other riddles with multiple answers?


Obviously, the answer is the colour yellow. In the morning, the sky is yellow and expands in all four cardinal directions. At noon, the yellow sun is straight above our heads, and goes up and down, two directions. At night, there are two distinct yellow groups, the moon and the stars. But as we know, the moon is just reflecting the sun's rays, therefore three is the sum. If yellow=sky inhabitants and direction=legs is any less obtuse than days=lives and legs, arms, and wood= legs

What goes round and round the wood but never goes into the wood? (the bark, the wind, the sun, coyotes)

I am a wonderful help to women,
The hope of something to come. I harm
No citizen except my slayer.
Rooted I stand on a high bed.
I am shaggy below. Sometimes the beautiful
Peasant's daughter, an eager-armed,
Proud woman grabs my body,
Rushes my red skin, holds me hard,
Claims my head. The curly-haired
Woman who catches me fast will feel
Our meeting. Her eye will be wet.
a penis, an onion, a rose (her eye wet crying in pain because she grasped the tall stalk of a thorny rose, and a rose given as a gift is "the hope of something to come" where that hope is love or marriage), a robin (the answer I gave when I first heard it; robins are harbingers of spring, "the hope of something to come", they're not aggressive but peck you if you catch them, they have downy feathers on their lower body...)

All things this thing devours,
The birds, the trees, the flowers,
Gnaws iron, bites steel,
Grinds hard stone to meal,
Slays king, ruins town,
And beats high mountain down
Time, water

There are four brothers in this world that were all born together. The first runs and never wearies. The second eats and is never full. The third drinks and is always thirsty. The fourth sings a song that is never good. water/fire/earth/wind, love/avarice/lust/anger, ant/worm/fish/crow)
As I explained earlier, the Sphinx killed herself when Oedipus answered her riddle. There would be no justifiable reason for an intelligent creature to do this if she had just been matched rather than bested, and to my knowledge no reason to think that simply being matched would be cause for the Sphinx to kill herself. That suggests that there was either no intended answer, or the Sphinx thought of something different. Either way, that suggests that she accepted an answer that she didn't think of. I can't think of a single Greek story where some character kills her/himself for having an equal, but for being defeated and thus inferior there are a fair number. Just because there are not multiple answers given in the text does not mean that there are not multiple answers that are acceptable.


EDIT - I suppose I should clarify that "what's black and white and red all over" is NOT a traditional riddle. No clever peasant of the antiquity or the Middle Ages would have made that one up. "Why is a raven like a writing desk" is NOT a traditional riddle, it's Lewis Carroll - and it only has multiple answers because it was never meant to have an answer in the first place.

Are you saying time frame is important for what constitutes a "traditional" riddle more than form and style? For the purposes of composing riddles, is a mule different from a pickup truck even when they serve largely the same role? What is it that determines a traditional riddle?

[HeadlessMermaid]

What is it that determines a traditional riddle?
Simply put, I mean pre-industrial. So don't quote the OP and don't give multiple answers yourself, you're both post-industrial. You're information age. :smalltongue:

To put things back into perspective, you were talking about the riddle of the Sphinx (~2500 years ago) and the wit of Scandinavian heroes - I'm assuming you meant from the Edda and the sagas (~900 years ago) and similar traditions, not the wit of modern day people in modern day Norway. :smalltongue:

As for the Sphinx killing herself, sorry, but it's pure conjecture that "she had another answer in mind, which wasn't as awesome as man". Pure, unsupported conjecture.

She was bested because Oedipus solved the riddle. The implication is that no one had done that before (hence, in some versions, human skeletons adorned the area). If the implication was that the Spinix's own solution was less satisfactory, why didn't any author give us that solution, so that we could compare and judge for ourselves and praise Oedipus's superiority? Simple: because there wasn't one.

So no, she didn't kill herself because she was "defeated, and not only matched". She killed herself because her entire raison d'être (and function in that story) was to stop people from passing, by posing questions too difficult to answer. She wasn't a "character" with complex motivations. She was merely an obstacle to be removed - and a literary device to demonstrate the hero's wit.

Really, the onion/penis example and similar double entendres are the only riddles that look like they have multiple answers. But if you think about it, you'll understand that - quite on the contrary - they're traps. If someone said "oooh, I know! I know! it's a penis!", the riddle-spinner would laugh and say: "NO! it's an onion! haha, you fell for it!" Indeed, falling for it was the whole point. :)

[Saskia]

So answers we come up with as modern people are invalid, and you want me to demonstrate that there was not more than one possible solution from a time and society where a large portion of people were illiterate? That doesn't strike you as unfair? My point is that a good riddle will have multiple solutions, whether intended or not. You seem to be working from the position that the only "correct" answer is the one the author thinks of, rather than just anything that fits the descriptions. I already explained why I don't think that is or should be the case.

Also I supported my position on the Sphinx' riddle. Twice. It's conjecture, sure, but it's not unsupported any more than saying that there was only one possible answer is. What we know is that Oedipus answered the riddle, the Sphinx seemed to accept it, and then the Sphinx offed herself. There is no reason except social conditioning to think that there must be one and only one "correct" answer, however.

Sure, the Sphinx was more an obstacle than a character, existing primarily (in the context of the story as literature) to show off how brilliant Oedipus was. That makes sense. In that vein I can see the Sphinx destroying herself as representative of his conquest. That still doesn't imply even remotely that there was only one acceptable answer though.

The fact that the double entendres were usually made up just to say WELL LOOK WHOSE MIND IS IN THE GUTTER! speaks to my point. Just because it describes both a penis and an onion does not mean that it does not describe a robin just as well, and on that basis you could not reasonably say that "a robin" is an unfit response, unless you're going to declare by fiat that responses from modern people don't count. That declaration alone means that you and I are talking about fundamentally different things, because as I said a good riddle is poetry with multiple authors. If you're only going to accept the riddler's response then there is no finite number of riddles that are logically unanswerable, and if that were the Sphinx' expectation she could have just said "What is it that runs without tiring" and eaten pretty much everybody, since after all who's going to think something like "beer from a busy bar" when there are such poetic answers like "water", "water", and "time"?

The Sphinx' riddle is open ended, as all good riddles are, so it would be silly to say "No, X doesn't work even though it perfectly fits into the riddle. The answer is Y which fits by equally tenuous logic, so om nom nom!" :smalltongue:

[HeadlessMermaid]

So answers we come up with as modern people are invalid, and you want me to demonstrate that there was not more than one possible solution from a time and society where a large portion of people were illiterate? That doesn't strike you as unfair?
...Aw, man, it's a HUGE misunderstanding then. :)

I had a very specific context in mind: riddles from mythological or folk traditions, normally attributed to the collective wit and imagination of simple (and indeed mostly illiterate) people. You're apparently talking about riddles in general, and how we, today, perceive them and can think of answers. Totally different thing! :smallsmile:


Also I supported my position on the Sphinx' riddle. Twice. It's conjecture, sure, but it's not unsupported any more than saying that there was only one possible answer is.
I beg to differ. And I'm a Greek bearing Documentation.


In his reign a heavy calamity befell Thebes. For Hera sent the Sphinx, whose mother was Echidna and her father Typhon; and she had the face of a woman, the breast and feet and tail of a lion, and the wings of a bird. And having learned a riddle from the Muses, she sat on Mount Phicium, and propounded it to the Thebans. And the riddle was this:— What is that which has one voice and yet becomes four-footed and two-footed and three-footed? Now the Thebans were in possession of an oracle which declared that they should be rid of the Sphinx whenever they had read her riddle; so they often met and discussed the answer, and when they could not find it the Sphinx used to snatch away one of them and gobble him up. When many had perished, and last of all Creon's son Haemon, Creon made proclamation that to him who should read the riddle he would give both the kingdom and the wife of Laius. On hearing that, Oedipus found the solution, declaring that the riddle of the Sphinx referred to man; for as a babe he is four-footed, going on four limbs, as an adult he is two-footed, and as an old man he gets besides a third support in a staff. So the Sphinx threw herself from the citadel, and Oedipus both succeeded to the kingdom and unwittingly married his mother, and begat sons by her, Polynices and Eteocles, and daughters, Ismene and Antigone.

~ Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca (2nd or 1st century BC), ed. Sir James George Frazer


JOCASTA: Now when the Sphinx was oppressing and ravaging our city, after my husband's death, my brother Creon proclaimed my marriage: that he would marry me to anyone who should guess the riddle of the crafty maiden. It happened somehow that my son, Oedipus, guessed the Sphinx's song; [and so he became king of this land] and received the scepter of this land as his prize.

~ Euripides, The Phoenician Women (5th century BC), ed. Gilbert Murray

I'd provide more versions if the search function of Perseus (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/) wasn't full of glitches and server errors at the moment. Will you take my word for it if I tell you that I've read that story from the primary sources, and it's crystal clear from the lot of them that there's only one acceptable answer? (At least in the stories. If you want to let your imagination go wild, more power to you.)

[Savannah]

I am a wonderful help to women,
The hope of something to come. I harm
No citizen except my slayer.
Rooted I stand on a high bed.
I am shaggy below. Sometimes the beautiful
Peasant's daughter, an eager-armed,
Proud woman grabs my body,
Rushes my red skin, holds me hard,
Claims my head. The curly-haired
Woman who catches me fast will feel
Our meeting. Her eye will be wet.
a penis, an onion, a rose (her eye wet crying in pain because she grasped the tall stalk of a thorny rose, and a rose given as a gift is "the hope of something to come" where that hope is love or marriage), a robin (the answer I gave when I first heard it; robins are harbingers of spring, "the hope of something to come", they're not aggressive but peck you if you catch them, they have downy feathers on their lower body...)

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree. While penis, rose, and robin appear good answers at first, they do not hold up. "I harm No citizen except my slayer" makes no sense if the answer is penis. Roses do not have red skin to be removed. Robins are not rooted on anything and young women do not claim their heads. A riddle may well have multiple good solutions, but to be good solutions they need to fully answer the riddle, which is harder than it may seem.

[SaintRidley]

That would, of course, depend on how far the meaning of harm can be stretched. Whoever vanquishes the penis is liable to be tired from their exertions, for instance.

I do think there are better Old English riddles to use for double entendre, though. The key one is what I was expecting to come up when I saw someone had posted an Old English riddle in the thread. I'll dig it up tomorrow.

[Saskia]

...Aw, man, it's a HUGE misunderstanding then. :)

I had a very specific context in mind: riddles from mythological or folk traditions, normally attributed to the collective wit and imagination of simple (and indeed mostly illiterate) people. You're apparently talking about riddles in general, and how we, today, perceive them and can think of answers. Totally different thing! :smallsmile:

Oh, yeah I only meant in general, not in the particular context of myths. I do think the riddles of myth apply as well though, even though they do serve a slightly different role :smallsmile:



I beg to differ. And I'm a Greek bearing Documentation.

[dox]


I'd provide more versions if the search function of Perseus (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/) wasn't full of glitches and server errors at the moment. Will you take my word for it if I tell you that I've read that story from the primary sources, and it's crystal clear from the lot of them that there's only one acceptable answer? (At least in the stories. If you want to let your imagination go wild, more power to you.)[/QUOTE]

Sure, if the text makes it clear that there's only one answer. That just means the riddle is poorly thought out though, since there are several potentially justifiable answers. If the Sphinx would not accept a perfectly logical answer based on her wording and the logic she used to get to her own answer then she's not the ancient Greek logic gate she seems intended to have been, she's just Rumpelstiltskin v.1.0 and Oedipus just got lucky and happened to have guessed the correct one. That's not exactly compelling evidence of Oedipus' wisdom :smalltongue:

Your first source implies that there is only one answer, sure, but it's also from 3-4 centuries after the story was first recorded. I have trouble considering that a contemporary source. From the earlier quotation

[...]guess the riddle of the crafty maiden[...]

[...]my son, Oedipus, guessed the Sphinx's song[...]

The earlier source you quoted references the riddle, not the answer. This isn't splitting hairs, either, the riddle and its answer are not one entity, and with my interpretation of what makes a riddle "good" you would never refer to the answer because there is no one answer; you would guess the riddle, but not the answer. Granted, using that terminology could apply either way, but it does leave a large degree of ambiguity.


Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree. While penis, rose, and robin appear good answers at first, they do not hold up. "I harm No citizen except my slayer" makes no sense if the answer is penis. Roses do not have red skin to be removed. Robins are not rooted on anything and young women do not claim their heads. A riddle may well have multiple good solutions, but to be good solutions they need to fully answer the riddle, which is harder than it may seem.

To "slay" the penis could result in an unwanted pregnancy; depending on the social status context that could be as good as a death sentence, and even if it's wanted pregnancy is a dangerous prospect even today, so for an ancient woman it makes perfect sense to say that a penis could harm its slayer. If you're unpracticed it can hurt quite a bit, too. There are plenty of girls who have idly plucked the soft petals of a red rose. Robins nest on branches high above the ground, and I know I'm not the only one who's tried to catch one perched on a low branch :smallbiggrin:

[nedz]

Erm, the answer is Onion; you are only meant to think of something else.

It's quite clever in that it is much hard to solve a problem if you think that you already know the answer.

Also, it was written in Old English — so analysing the translation for weasel words is a flawed approach.

[Saskia]

Erm, the answer is Onion; you are only meant to think of something else.

It's quite clever in that it is much hard to solve a problem if you think that you already know the answer.

Also, it was written in Old English — so analysing the translation for weasel words is a flawed approach.

The point is broader than any one given riddle, and I've explained now ad nauseum how "there is only one answer" is flawed. Examples are not and cannot be exhaustive. They are examples. Examples are intended to be exemplary of concepts. Concepts are broader than examples. Look for the concepts. The examples are not the concepts. You haven't read what I said if you think that "the answer is Onion" is even remotely a rebuttal. You can't just declare that I'm wrong without justification when I've gone to such great lengths to explain my position. There is a reason "Nuh-uh!" is not an accepted form of argument in any field, including literature.

[GnomeFighter]

To "slay" the penis could result in an unwanted pregnancy; depending on the social status context that could be as good as a death sentence, and even if it's wanted pregnancy is a dangerous prospect even today, so for an ancient woman it makes perfect sense to say that a penis could harm its slayer. If you're unpracticed it can hurt quite a bit, too. There are plenty of girls who have idly plucked the soft petals of a red rose. Robins nest on branches high above the ground, and I know I'm not the only one who's tried to catch one perched on a low branch :smallbiggrin:

Equally without context of the real meaning of the middle English word for "slay" we cannot know the true meaning of the phrase. Slay could have been a pun in middle English as it could be in French... "Le Pettie Mort". Not something you would know without some understanding of French and the context.

The other thing you have to remember is that people have always been obsesed with a good, rude, joke. I would not be surprised by the riddle being a joke. As much as we think of the late middle ages being a time of knights and religion, they loved a good **** or fart joke.

[HeadlessMermaid]

I would not be surprised by the riddle being a joke. As much as we think of the late middle ages being a time of knights and religion, they loved a good **** or fart joke.
Heh, according to an article from io9 (http://io9.com/5880232/the-worlds-oldest-yo-mama-joke-is-3500-years-old), the oldest known joke is a fart joke from Sumeria, ~2000 BC.

From a modern point of view, I don't think it's a very good one, but it's still intelligible - which is pretty impressive if you consider how difficult it is to translate humor from culture to culture. I mean, even jokes from the 1950s often sound silly to us - and this one's from 4 millennia ago. :smallbiggrin:

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I remember the Mindtrap game (an early iteration) which had a thoroughly weird and contrived "mystery".

"A man was found frozen and dead in the middle of a field, with no footprints leading towards him or away from him. What happened?"

Answer:
He was stowing away on an airplane by clinging to the undercarriage; when the plane got high enough, he froze to death, lost his grip, and fell out of the plane and into the field.

Like...HUH?

EDIT: apparently, it has real-world precedence (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200947/Man-dead-street-Heathrow-flight-path-illegal-immigrant-stowaway.html).

[Saskia]

Equally without context of the real meaning of the middle English word for "slay" we cannot know the true meaning of the phrase. Slay could have been a pun in middle English as it could be in French... "Le Pettie Mort". Not something you would know without some understanding of French and the context.

The point is broader than any one given riddle. Examples are not and cannot be exhaustive. They are examples. Examples are intended to be exemplary of concepts. Concepts are broader than examples. Look for the concepts.


The other thing you have to remember is that people have always been obsesed with a good, rude, joke. I would not be surprised by the riddle being a joke. As much as we think of the late middle ages being a time of knights and religion, they loved a good **** or fart joke.

Seriously? I already said this, and I shouldn't need to say it explicitly in the first place, but one example is not the whole concept. You're caught up on one irrelevant detail. The author's intent is not the limit of a work's meaning. That would completely undermine the entire purpose for art. Yes, even bad fart jokes are art, in their own way. If you relegate different views from the author's view as "wrong" just because they aren't the author, you remove the entire purpose for the interaction.

In fact, things like "A dong? I was gonna say onion, but I guess now we know whose mind is in the gutter..." are exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my original post,


A good riddle is poetry with two (or more) poets; the first identifies a perception taken for granted, the second identifies the preconception and more importantly considers a scenario where that preconception doesn't apply

A joke where you're led to believe the answer is "a penis" but is not the author's punchline is precisely that. The author takes advantage of the things we take for granted, and the idea that the author intends to make the OH HO HO I MEANT ONION punchline is only applicable if the second member of the dance falls into the trap. If you deny the applicability of alternate answers then you deny the entire joke because it hinges on a specific response that most people will make. That joke loses all of its effectiveness if you railroad the listener into one answer and refuse to accept anything but "penis". The entirety of the joke is about the predictability of the human mind, which is lost if you deny the variability of peoples' answers. The fact that some people might think of something other than "a penis" is exactly what makes the whole thing work, which is why you can't just say "Oh it's a dirty joke therefore a robin is not a viable answer". It isn't funny if there is no other answer. Just because it's a fairly simple dirty joke doesn't mean it's not based on sophisticated understanding of human nature.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Seriously? You haven't read anything I wrote on this thread? Not even what I wrote on this one page? One example is not everything ever.
:smallannoyed:
...Saskia, no offense, but I fear all those compliments about your first post got to your head. It was a beautiful and poetic post. And it was partly WRONG.

You have "explained ad nauseam" how riddles have multiple answers in your mind. And that's lovely (no, really: it's lovely), but for the love of god, do NOT presume that it applies to anyone else's mind, not without evidence.

I claim that the riddles of pre-industrial societies had one answer. I base this on the fact that all recorded riddles (that I know of) have only one recorded solution. If you want to convince me otherwise, kindly provide ONE example of a recorded riddle with multiple recorded acceptable answers.

You know, your fervor led me to believe that there IS such a tradition, and you're aware of it, while I'm not - perhaps in Asia or Africa or who knows where. But apparently, you're just making things up, and then you claim that that's how riddles work universally. That's very misleading. Please stop doing it.

[Saskia]

:smallannoyed:
...Saskia, no offense, but I fear all those compliments about your first post got to your head. It was a beautiful and poetic post. And it was partly WRONG.

I don't take offense, I'm quite glad to be called out if you think I'm wrong. I'd frankly rather not be complimented on the eloquence of my opinions regarding the sorts of things that are up for debate; people tend to make that assumption that "it went to your head" if you later get frustrated by people simply declaring something incorrect by virtue of "I said so." If I'm wrong, I'm quite happy to hear it, I'd rather be shown to be incorrect than continue to be ignorant. However, saying "Well you have to remember, X" when I've already explained why I don't think X applies is just a bit offensive. It's stupid to take offense, sure, and that's why I edited my response; frankly it was immature and not terribly meaningful; I do try to avoid that even if I err in judgment :smallredface:

I still hold that somebody is within reason to be frustrated and even offended by logic analogous to "Well Hitler was an vegetarian!" and particularly so after you've explained that vegetarianism is not the reason for his actions, just because you mentioned it in passing when talking about his great love of dogs or something. Jeffrey Dahmer was also really nice to his grandmother, it doesn't change anything. I'm obviously taking some exaggerative liberty here, but conceptually it's the same as when I explain that I don't think the author's intent is the limit of a riddle's impact and somebody says "well it's just a sex joke" as if the intent of the joke made any difference in the applicability of an answer. I thought I had explained quite thoroughly why I don't believe that a riddle is ever so simple as "just a sex joke", and I thought that I had made equally clear that I think the interaction is by its nature more complex than that, regardless of how simple it looks on the surface.


You have "explained ad nauseam" how riddles have multiple answers in your mind. And that's lovely (no, really: it's lovely), but for the love of god, do NOT presume that it applies to anyone else's mind, not without evidence.
I also said explicitly once or twice that it's how I see it. That shouldn't be a caveat I need to add to every point I make; it's tedious and unnecessary. I expect that statements anybody makes are only tentative as far as they can be supported (except where explicitly stated as universals), and general rather than categorical. I don't see those as terribly aberrant assumptions, either, and since I didn't say my view is categorically correct I don't think it's fair to assume that's what I meant.


I claim that the riddles of pre-industrial societies had one answer. I base this on the fact that all recorded riddles (that I know of) have only one recorded solution. If you want to convince me otherwise, kindly provide ONE example of a recorded riddle with multiple recorded acceptable answers.
Sure, I'm not disputing that. What I claim is that it belies the entire point of riddles to say that only an answer the author thought of works. If it fits, it is senseless to reject a perfectly fitting answer just because the author didn't happen to think of it. If I ask you "What is 1+4?" you would be perfectly correct if you answered 5, but also if you said "half of ten". "A hand's worth of fingers" would also be acceptable, though perhaps a bit ironic if one of the people involved had more or less than five fingers on a hand. Just because in grade school there was only one answer does not mean that there is forevermore nothing greater than the one response found in the back of the book. That prospect seems to deny the very creativity and curiosity upon which riddles rely in the first place, which is why I don't think it's reasonable to say one answer is wrong just because it isn't what the author thought of. Riddles are just as meaningless if nobody cares to answer them as they are if nobody makes them up in the first place, which is a huge part of the reason I don't think the answers given are less meaningful than the riddler's intended answer.

On one hand you say that my understanding doesn't apply to everyone, and I would agree with that. But then you say that my interpretation, which is broader than the riddler's original intent, must be justified by the author's inclusion of answers outside his expectation. Finding a riddle with multiple canonical answers wouldn't do much to support my point, except with the example of the Sphinx which even still wouldn't do much for my larger point that the author is not the limit.


You know, your fervor led me to believe that there IS such a tradition, and you're aware of it, while I'm not - perhaps in Asia or Africa or who knows where. But apparently, you're just making things up, and then you claim that that's how riddles work universally. That's very misleading. Please stop doing it.
I never made that claim. I put forth a hypothesis regarding the core interaction between riddler and answerer. To my knowledge it's not some special tradition somewhere, but I don't see how that makes any difference, and I certainly don't see how "just making things up" is misleading. That renders all original ideas dishonest, unless you're saying that it's dishonest to claim that this is how things work universally, which would be true; that would be dishonest, but I never said that so if that IS your contention then it's in itself a misleading one. It's not misleading to propose and support an idea that an interaction is more complex than the participants know, either, since we interact on very sophisticated levels all the time and think little of it. I could understand saying that it was dishonest if I were simply declaring "This is how it is" and leaving it at that, but I've gone to great lengths to explain why I think that way, which I thought was sufficient implication that I understood it was up for debate.

[Science Officer]

Here's a good one, I don't know if it has a canonical answer, but I'll post the two I know later.


Imagine you are in a cell. The walls are made of concrete, and quite thick. Before you is a table, and a mirror. The only opening in the cell is a small hole in the ceiling, less wide than the palm of your hand. How do you get out?

[HeadlessMermaid]

unless you're saying that it's dishonest to claim that this is how things work universally, which would be true; that would be dishonest, but I never said that
No, but it DID sound that way when you were dismissing everyone else's arguments, and I'm glad you clarified it. :)

In a nutshell, my problem with your interpretation is that it utterly ignores context. And I'm used to paying A LOT of attention to context, because it tends to change everything.

But I didn't protest because I happen to disagree. I protested because at some point you started yelling at GnomeFighter, for insisting on taking context into account (quite correctly, IMO) and claiming that the onion riddle was just a joke - in the context of the culture that created the riddle.

So, as long as we agree that yelling is bad (and we do), I got no real quarrel with you, even if I don't (entirely) agree with your theory. :smallsmile:


P.S. I missed your edit about the Sphinx, above. Here's some more info for you, that may or may not affect your conclusions.

First, if I'm not mistaken, Pseudo-Apollodorus IS the earliest source of the famous riddle of the Sphinx. Earlier accounts mention a riddle, but do not actually record it. Perhaps Aeschylus included it in his Oedipus, but unfortunately this play has been lost, so we'll never know.

And second, the earliest known mention of the incident is in Oedipus Rex by Sophocles (5th century BC), and it goes like this: "The riddle lay above the ken of common men, and called for a prophet's skill [...] But then I came, I, Oedipus, who nothing knew, [he means he knew nothing about prophesies] and slew her, with mine own counsel winning."

You'll note that here the Sphinx doesn't kill herself at all, it's Oedipus who offs her. So maybe you shouldn't base your entire theory on a suicide that doesn't even appear in all versions? Just saying. :smalltongue:

[nedz]

Here's a good one, I don't know if it has a canonical answer, but I'll post the two I know later.


Imagine you are in a cell. The walls are made of concrete, and quite thick. Before you is a table, and a mirror. The only opening in the cell is a small hole in the ceiling, less wide than the palm of your hand. How do you get out?

I open the door ?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Here's a good one, I don't know if it has a canonical answer, but I'll post the two I know later.


Imagine you are in a cell. The walls are made of concrete, and quite thick. Before you is a table, and a mirror. The only opening in the cell is a small hole in the ceiling, less wide than the palm of your hand. How do you get out?
The answer I know is the one based around mildly silly wordplay.
You look in the mirror, and you see what you saw. You take the saw, and cut the table into halves. Two halves make a whole, so you jump into the hole and escape.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The answer I know is just annoying.

Stop imagining. There. You escaped.

[Science Officer]

I open the door ?

Of course there's no door! :smalltongue:


The answer I know is the one based around mildly silly wordplay.
You look in the mirror, and you see what you saw. You take the saw, and cut the table into halves. Two halves make a whole, so you jump into the hole and escape.

That's the first one.


The answer I know is just annoying.

Stop imagining. There. You escaped.

And that's my favourite.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Of course there's no door! :smalltongue:



That's the first one.



And that's my favourite.

And just why not? You had to get into the cell somehow, and a door's not an opening until you open it, though it's certainly a portal either way.

[Gildedragon]

Regarding the plurality of answers to riddles, and the recording of single solutions.
When dealing with recordings from folk or oral traditions one needs to consider the limits of record keeping, particularly when the society being recorded is not literate (or predominantly literate), and even more so when the text is old.

In general written down versions of oral-popular practices reflect a limited scope of the range of variation afforded in its performance. Popular stories or jokes may exhibit hundreds of variations; changes in pace, detail, tone, etc. Far more than are represented by the recorded versions of said pieces of culture.

In the case of riddles, this limited scope of answers fits well within this model. Those who engaged in the writing down of the answers may have recorded only the answers they found very ingenious, or sought to establish their answer as true by exercising their power over writing. Undoubtedly, however, folk practices of riddle telling would have produced multiple answers (provided a witty enough audience) just as modern riddle practices do so.

Also, illiterate is nowhere near "simple".

[Partof1]

Here's a good one, I don't know if it has a canonical answer, but I'll post the two I know later.


Imagine you are in a cell. The walls are made of concrete, and quite thick. Before you is a table, and a mirror. The only opening in the cell is a small hole in the ceiling, less wide than the palm of your hand. How do you get out?

I didn't get any wordplay answers, just a MacGyvery one, involving holding the mirror to the hole and waiting for a plane to see the reflection.

I do like the cartoon physics answer, though.

[Quorothorn]

Here's a good one, I don't know if it has a canonical answer, but I'll post the two I know later.


Imagine you are in a cell. The walls are made of concrete, and quite thick. Before you is a table, and a mirror. The only opening in the cell is a small hole in the ceiling, less wide than the palm of your hand. How do you get out?

Obviously you leap through it.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8mpbk9Bq71rbwtxgo1_250.gif

Also, I always loved the riddle game(s) in The Hobbit and other stories and plan to try using them in my new 3.5 game. This thread has given me Ideas. I thank you all.

[Istari]

I remember the Mindtrap game (an early iteration) which had a thoroughly weird and contrived "mystery".

"A man was found frozen and dead in the middle of a field, with no footprints leading towards him or away from him. What happened?"

Answer:
He was stowing away on an airplane by clinging to the undercarriage; when the plane got high enough, he froze to death, lost his grip, and fell out of the plane and into the field.

Like...HUH?

EDIT: apparently, it has real-world precedence (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200947/Man-dead-street-Heathrow-flight-path-illegal-immigrant-stowaway.html).

I was always under the impression that those sorts of riddles were intended as lateral thinking puzzles where the guessers had the opportunity to ask yes/no questions about the riddle.

[Rawhide]

I was always under the impression that those sorts of riddles were intended as lateral thinking puzzles where the guessers had the opportunity to ask yes/no questions about the riddle.

Mindtrap had both, with some you could ask questions and have as many guesses as you want, and others where you had just one guess and no questions.

[Teflonknight]

If I understand saskias' arguement correctly he is saying that yes when the riddle was created the author created it with one answer or around one answer, but that doesn't invalidate other answers that fit the riddles description. That being said some of the other answer can be a stretch to fit.

[willpell]

I love this thread and should have bumped it sooner. Apologies if I'm just a hair over the six-week limit; I don't have a calendar handy.


And just why not? You had to get into the cell somehow, and a door's not an opening until you open it, though it's certainly a portal either way.

Shame on you as a D&D player for assuming there's no way to put someone in a prison without using a door. :smallbiggrin:

[shawnhcorey]

Sorry, but all answers must be in the form of a question.

Oops. :smallredface: